I might be wrong but this seems like new information. Now the question is how difficult or long will it be before they fix that issue.

Any major change to the chassis would be limited to at least the first race of the European season, i.e. Barcelona. Until then they can only play with setup and minor bodywork changes. I wouldn't be surprised if we see some front wing mods and a concentrated effort on the suspension.

Just watched Ted Kravitz on the full length notebook (available on the website) and he mentioned that he'd asked McLaren about their simulator which had said that the 28 was a good car, and the response he got was that the simulator doesn't take into account the new tyres (as they haven't really modelled them) and haven't taken into account he lack of DRS round the whole lap.

It actually says the car has "potentially" more df. But that would make total sense - it's the entire reason to go with the high chassis.

Other team have got a big head-start on the ins and outs of this approach, but if anyone can catch-up quick it is McLaren. Sepang is smoother, has a lot more high speed and hopefully won't be so windy - could be a completely different story in a few days' time.

It actually says the car has "potentially" more df. But that would make total sense - it's the entire reason to go with the high chassis.

Other team have got a big head-start on the ins and outs of this approach, but if anyone can catch-up quick it is McLaren. Sepang is smoother, has a lot more high speed and hopefully won't be so windy - could be a completely different story in a few days' time.

so, in a roundabout way, the MP4-28 is a "one trick pony" for now.
If you get "all the stars lined up", that it can work in it's window, you can get all this "potential downforce" to work for you.
If you don't, it's dire straights, one thing leads to the next, and you are way off the pace.

For now, they can hope, that on some tracks/conditions, they are able to run in this setup conditions.
Once again, it looks like someone has "fallen in love" with his sims/windtunnel data, and take them as "reality".
Potential more downforce, is all fair and good, but at the end of the day, it's real world downforce/performance (under real conditions weather,track etc.) which wins you races and points.

If what has been reported from the first test is true, that would be "shocking". Not the fact, that this guy mounted the part the wrong way round, this can happen, but that it was not picked up,
before or at least when the car was running on the track for the first time. Makes you wonder, what all the guys in the back of the garage look at on their screens, and what all the sensors are for.
Seeing that "dynamic ride height" (ride height while running on the track) is too low, or lower then expected should not be that difficult to figure out.

It's a bit like a "ultra powerful engine" which makes all it's power in a small rpm range, that's great, unless you never have the chance, to run it in this rpm range, then you will be beaten by "less powerful" engines, which effectively make more power over the complete rpm range of operation. At the end of the day, power or downforce, it's not the peak value which wins you races, it's the area under the curve, over the range of operation.

If the aero is "peaky" and requires a very specific setup to work properly they are in big trouble if these tyres require a specific kind of set to work well too. Let's hope that isn't the case with warmer temps.

It's a bit ironic that Mclaren went down this route for "development potential" and now that they're 2 seconds behind, they got what they asked for. That said, if any there's any team that can turn this situation around, it's Mclaren.

so, in a roundabout way, the MP4-28 is a "one trick pony" for now.If you get "all the stars lined up", that it can work in it's window, you can get all this "potential downforce" to work for you.If you don't, it's dire straights, one thing leads to the next, and you are way off the pace.

For now, they can hope, that on some tracks/conditions, they are able to run in this setup conditions.Once again, it looks like someone has "fallen in love" with his sims/windtunnel data, and take them as "reality".Potential more downforce, is all fair and good, but at the end of the day, it's real world downforce/performance (under real conditions weather,track etc.) which wins you races and points.

If what has been reported from the first test is true, that would be "shocking". Not the fact, that this guy mounted the part the wrong way round, this can happen, but that it was not picked up,before or at least when the car was running on the track for the first time. Makes you wonder, what all the guys in the back of the garage look at on their screens, and what all the sensors are for.Seeing that "dynamic ride height" (ride height while running on the track) is too low, or lower then expected should not be that difficult to figure out.

It's a bit like a "ultra powerful engine" which makes all it's power in a small rpm range, that's great, unless you never have the chance, to run it in this rpm range, then you will be beaten by "less powerful" engines, which effectively make more power over the complete rpm range of operation. At the end of the day, power or downforce, it's not the peak value which wins you races, it's the area under the curve, over the range of operation.

The car was not that much slower. The team sent him out too early on a rapidly drying track. By the time the others set their lap he had already wrecked his tyres.

I think the car is about 1.5s slower. I think the team should focus on taking car of the tyres rather than absolute performance. No point having the quickest car if these cheddar tyres are destroyed after a handful of laps.

The car was not that much slower. The team sent him out too early on a rapidly drying track. By the time the others set their lap he had already wrecked his tyres.

I think the car is about 1.5s slower. I think the team should focus on taking car of the tyres rather than absolute performance. No point having the quickest car if these cheddar tyres are destroyed after a handful of laps.

I don't think the tyres will be as much of a problem at Sepang. The temperatures were surprisingly low in Melbourne and that made it more of a conservation race. I hope I'm wrong though because if not I would expect Red Bull to run away from everyone in Malaysia.

I'm not expecting much from the MP4-28 this week. I would guess that they have parts coming to improve the situation (probably started after the first test in Barcelona) but that won't be ready in time for this weekend. The smoother track and higher temperatures will help a little though for sure.

McLaren’s impressive pace on the first day of testing in Jerez in February was generated by a mistake when the car was being put together in the factory, Martin Whitmarsh has confirmed to this blog.

A suspension component was fitted incorrectly to the new car – apparently it was simply the wrong way round – and the unexpectedly low ride height that resulted happened to work well at the Spanish track. Button set the pace that day, suggesting that the MP4-28 could be the car to beat.

However once the mistake was discovered that night, it was rectified, as the car could not be run in that state long term at other venue, especially with heavy fuel loads.

Since then the team has struggled to get close to that initial performance, leading rivals and other observers to wonder just why the McLaren had been so impressive out of the box.

On Friday in Australia Jenson Button pinpointed the issue by saying: “We had a set-up we didn’t think we had. It wasn’t one we could work with.”

A little investigation has revealed that it wasn’t simply a question of a miscalculation of settings, but a part being fitted wrongly.

“It was a part fitted incorrectly which caused us to run the car unrealistically low, that happened to play to the strengths of the car,” Whitmarsh confirmed when asked by this blog. “It wouldn’t work on a bumpy circuit like this. That’s why the car at the moment is too peaky in its performance, and that’s something we’ve got to resolve. It was a set-up which on many tracks was not realistic.”

Whitmarsh also noted that McLaren’s extreme problems on Friday in Australia were related to trying to run the in a low configuration once again.

What are the odds on the snowplow reappearing to divert some of the under-nose flow?

Just thinking about McLaren potential front-end problems...could we see the return of the snow plough for Oz?

Great minds...

Of course it depends on exactly what the cars root problem is and how the plough could fit into the overall aero philosophy but given the cars performance in Oz I think McLaren need to look at all their options.

What are the odds on the snowplow reappearing to divert some of the under-nose flow?

Downforce and flow don't seem to be the problem from what the team is saying. Its the cars ride and set up. This points to suspension as suspected. This would also explain why the drivers are all at sea - they will not be used (as no driver will) with a car as badly behaved as this one. They need to be crunching the numbers in the simulator to try and map out something which feels the same as the car right now, and then reverse engineering the problem from there. Bolting more downforce on could actually make the problem worse ironically.

Alternately, they could rip the pull rod out and install a more standard push rod (this would require a tub change) - but in the long run, this could end up being the faster solution. Will the teams pride allow this? That is anyones guess - we will all know soon enough.

In other news, I wouldn't like to be Paddy Lowe right now - not the best time to be looking for a new job.

Alternately, they could rip the pull rod out and install a more standard push rod (this would require a tub change) - but in the long run, this could end up being the faster solution. Will the teams pride allow this? That is anyones guess - we will all know soon enough.

Aside from making it easier to make alterations to front dampers, this would not make any difference to their situation. The fact that the suspension linkage pulls instead of pushes is irrelevant, I think.

Other teams would not need to "allow" it, but they would probably have to re-do the crash test, after designing and building a new chassis.

In other words, that ain't gonna happen.__

And er - Paddy Lowe has already got a new job,hasn't he? Hence the gardening leave?

Downforce and flow don't seem to be the problem from what the team is saying. Its the cars ride and set up. This points to suspension as suspected. This would also explain why the drivers are all at sea - they will not be used (as no driver will) with a car as badly behaved as this one. They need to be crunching the numbers in the simulator to try and map out something which feels the same as the car right now, and then reverse engineering the problem from there. Bolting more downforce on could actually make the problem worse ironically.

Alternately, they could rip the pull rod out and install a more standard push rod (this would require a tub change) - but in the long run, this could end up being the faster solution. Will the teams pride allow this? That is anyones guess - we will all know soon enough.

In other news, I wouldn't like to be Paddy Lowe right now - not the best time to be looking for a new job.

No, it's actually not what they are saying. They are saying that the 28 should have more downforce than 27 theoretically. And that it is a bitch to actually harness it and the only time they have managed it really so far was with the backwards suspension bit installation fiasco. If you combine that knowledge with Gary Anderson's remarks, that the inherent way how the car is constructed, especially the very aggressive coke bottle shape makes it very easy for the air to do unwanted stuff, especially if the car rolls and yaws in corners. More specifically, it allows the air to get UNDER the floor, completely negating any inherent downforce it is supposed to give you. This points very much to a severe aerodynamic problem that is very very hard to fix fast.

The pullrod is the culprit in the eyes of so many here because of mainly two things - 1st is that the word is easily remembered and it's what's VISIBLY different from Red Bull in a way that ANYONE can sorta think that they understand it. And 2nd, also the one having a bit merit - the pullrod is making changing the setup much slower.

Aside from making it easier to make alterations to front dampers, this would not make any difference to their situation. The fact that the suspension linkage pulls instead of pushes is irrelevant, I think.

Other teams would not need to "allow" it, but they would probably have to re-do the crash test, after designing and building a new chassis.

In other words, that ain't gonna happen.__

And er - Paddy Lowe has already got a new job,hasn't he? Hence the gardening leave?

The loads and behaviour of pull and push rod suspension are different - the pull rod is very extreme and the loadings on the system are much more complex than the now standard push rod. With regard to Lowe - the deal apparently isn't entirely in place.

No, it's actually not what they are saying. They are saying that the 28 should have more downforce than 27 theoretically. And that it is a bitch to actually harness it and the only time they have managed it really so far was with the backwards suspension bit installation fiasco. If you combine that knowledge with Gary Anderson's remarks, that the inherent way how the car is constructed, especially the very aggressive coke bottle shape makes it very easy for the air to do unwanted stuff, especially if the car rolls and yaws in corners. More specifically, it allows the air to get UNDER the floor, completely negating any inherent downforce it is supposed to give you. This points very much to a severe aerodynamic problem that is very very hard to fix fast.

The pullrod is the culprit in the eyes of so many here because of mainly two things - 1st is that the word is easily remembered and it's what's VISIBLY different from Red Bull in a way that ANYONE can sorta think that they understand it. And 2nd, also the one having a bit merit - the pullrod is making changing the setup much slower.

Gary Anderson's comments make a lot of sense this time, since Button has mentioned the car is just very inconsistent. One corner it is fine, next lap the same corner it is horrible. So a bit of yaw or side wind causing a big disruption in the airflow because of the (too) aggressive design could very well be the culprit.

No, it's actually not what they are saying. They are saying that the 28 should have more downforce than 27 theoretically. And that it is a bitch to actually harness it and the only time they have managed it really so far was with the backwards suspension bit installation fiasco. If you combine that knowledge with Gary Anderson's remarks, that the inherent way how the car is constructed, especially the very aggressive coke bottle shape makes it very easy for the air to do unwanted stuff, especially if the car rolls and yaws in corners. More specifically, it allows the air to get UNDER the floor, completely negating any inherent downforce it is supposed to give you. This points very much to a severe aerodynamic problem that is very very hard to fix fast.

The pullrod is the culprit in the eyes of so many here because of mainly two things - 1st is that the word is easily remembered and it's what's VISIBLY different from Red Bull in a way that ANYONE can sorta think that they understand it. And 2nd, also the one having a bit merit - the pullrod is making changing the setup much slower.

Yes, I sorta figured much of what you said a few days back and posted accordingly. The aero is designed to work on a set window of angles, if the front suspension is allowing/forcing the car beyond those angles, it would have bad dynamic results and would make the car difficult to understand/set up/predict.

The loads and behaviour of pull and push rod suspension are different - the pull rod is very extreme and the loadings on the system are much more complex than the now standard push rod. With regard to Lowe - the deal apparently isn't entirely in place.

They really aren't (all that different). There might be a little more complexity in terms of linkage inside the chassis, but pushrods have those too anyway. If there is a significant difference it is just that the wishbones are mounted higher on a higher chassis, compared to last year's McLaren.

The problem is aero, I'll bet. They need to sweat out all the intricate details and get the aero working more consistently with a more supple suspension - at the moment they can only approximate a decent aero performance by running the car crazy-stiff.

They really aren't (all that different). There might be a little more complexity in terms of linkage inside the chassis, but pushrods have those too anyway. If there is a significant difference it is just that the wishbones are mounted higher on a higher chassis, compared to last year's McLaren.

The problem is aero, I'll bet. They need to sweat out all the intricate details and get the aero working more consistently with a more supple suspension - at the moment they can only approximate a decent aero performance by running the car crazy-stiff.

The dynamics of the system are different - and the load points are different too - these things could be causing problems. Everyone is focusing on the fact that the car was lower when the suspension was incorrectly installed at the first test - but surely the mistake would have also killed a lot of the play in the system - thus setting the car up more rigidly too? This could suggest that there is too much movement in the front-end which could be allowing the car outside of its ideal window for the aero to work?

Are you guys now happy that Macca understands what is "wrong" with the car?

Well. To be honest, we have way of knowing if they understand it or not. We can only speculate. There is a progress made in this thread in that the speculations seem to be moving towards the direction of "more plausible".

BTW, i think Mclaren will be a lot closer at Sepang, this track surface is very smooth. But, this track have a lot of long duration corner, and if the car is too stiff, during the race trim it will cook the tyres. I don't know if the weekend will be dry or wet, but i expect to see one Mclaren in Q3 in the dry, and the second one at worse at the 11th place after quali.

BTW, i think Mclaren will be a lot closer at Sepang, this track surface is very smooth. But, this track have a lot of long duration corner, and if the car is too stiff, during the race trim it will cook the tyres. I don't know if the weekend will be dry or wet, but i expect to see one Mclaren in Q3 in the dry, and the second one at worse at the 11th place after quali.

I really thing both cars in the top 11 is quite optimistic.Force India seems fast(er) on merit and the Sauber should excel at this kind of circuit.

I really thing both cars in the top 11 is quite optimistic.Force India seems fast(er) on merit and the Sauber should excel at this kind of circuit.

I have a hard time believing this .... I hate to harp on about this but the Macca is simply a better car than the Force India - it is obvious. Nobody in their wildest dreams predicted Force India being faster/better than Macca. Not even the most negative person....

Car 5: Jenson Button“Australia was obviously a tough weekend and, despite getting the maximum out of the car, it’s still clearly not where we want to be. There’s a lot of work to be done but we all know that this team won’t stop working until they get it right. For this weekend, I don’t think we can expect an improvement in our fortunes, but the thing about Malaysia is that it can be so unpredictable....

Car 6: Sergio Perez“Last weekend’s race was a difficult one for everybody on the team, but it’s shown us exactly what we need to do to close down the gap to the leaders. This weekend in Malaysia will be about trying to maximise the package we have while knowing that it’s not going to be enough to allow us to fight for overall victory. Still, we know what we have to do – and I know that everybody within the Vodafone McLaren Mercedes team will be working incredibly hard to bring performance to the car. That may not happen in Malaysia, as it’s so soon after the Australian Grand Prix, but we know it’ll start coming soon....

Martin Whitmarsh, Team principal, Vodafone McLaren Mercedes“Clearly, our performance in Australia last weekend was not up to our high expectations – and we have been working tirelessly to bring additional performance to MP4-28. But the short turnaround between rounds one and two of the championship means that we’ll arrive in Malaysia with less scope to improve our fortunes. ...

both Whitmarsh and Jenson used the word "fortunes", sounds a bit weird to me, doesn't it mean luck? it's not something you can improve

well, there is the saying "you make your own luck" in English, isn't there?Maybe "odds" (as in gambling) is a "better" translation for "fortunes" then "luck per se" in the context of the article.

I can be wrong off course, but to me what they intent to say is.We can do little to actively influence "our luck" ( the outcome of the weekend), in terms of development parts to address some of the issues that showed up in Australia.But if the circumstances (weather, track characteristics, tyre choice by Pirelli) allow us to run the car "in the performance window" we may look better, more competitive.So "they are at the mercy of the racing gods or luck", with little scope to actively effect/alter the outcome of the weekend.Still it could go both ways for them.

I happened to review the lap times from Australian Grand Prix and compare lap times of Vettel & Kimi with that of Button. While both Red Bull and Lotus are comfortably ahead of McLaren, what comes out of lap times is less than 2 secs gap between them. In fact surprisingly the gap is less than a sec.

To arrive at average difference in lap times, I have not considered following laps:- Lap 1 of the race- In and Out lap during pit stop- Last 5 laps of the race (Button seemed to be cruising after Grosjean's mistake)

Average difference between Vettel and Button's lap time - 0.942 secAverage difference between Kimi and Button's lap time - 0.882 sec(Mind you - while overall Vettel had a quicker car, Kimi managed his tires well and hence did one stop less to win the race)

In the images I have highlighted 2 odd times in 1.35 secs and 1 odd time in 1.36 secs which Button completed on laps 2, 3 (was on Super soft which he used & destroyed in qualifying) and 29. If we were to exclude these 3 odd times then the average comes to following:

Average difference between Vettel and Button's lap time - 0.808 secAverage difference between Kimi and Button's lap time - 0.778 sec

I happened to review the lap times from Australian Grand Prix and compare lap times of Vettel & Kimi with that of Button. While both Red Bull and Lotus are comfortably ahead of McLaren, what comes out of lap times is less than 2 secs gap between them. In fact surprisingly the gap is less than a sec.

To arrive at average difference in lap times, I have not considered following laps:- Lap 1 of the race- In and Out lap during pit stop- Last 5 laps of the race (Button seemed to be cruising after Grosjean's mistake)

Average difference between Vettel and Button's lap time - 0.942 secAverage difference between Kimi and Button's lap time - 0.882 sec(Mind you - while overall Vettel had a quicker car, Kimi managed his tires well and hence did one stop less to win the race)

In the images I have highlighted 2 odd times in 1.35 secs and 1 odd time in 1.36 secs which Button completed on laps 2, 3 (was on Super soft which he used & destroyed in qualifying) and 29. If we were to exclude these 3 odd times then the average comes to following:

Average difference between Vettel and Button's lap time - 0.808 secAverage difference between Kimi and Button's lap time - 0.778 sec

Not all seems to be lost. We could have a better race this weekend.

A second a lap slower means that they came damn close to being lapped. For Mclaren to be a minute down on the others having been at the front last year is a ludicrous situation to be in. Can't quite believe it myself.